Sugars and Sweeteners
Consumer demand for lower sugar options has resulted in many confectionery producers moving towards the introduction of reduced-sugar versions of their best-selling products. However, it is important to remain on the right side of all the trends and another important consumer demand today is for natural products which, in part, explains the increased uptake of stevia as a confectionery sweetener. “Fortunately, in the last decade, we have made huge leaps forward in the tools available to enable the reduction of sugars, especially in the stevia space,” says Magalie. “Cargill has invested a great deal of time studying the properties of the stevia leaf, searching for the optimal balance of sweetness and taste. As part of that research, it has developed the ViaTech portfolio of stevia leaf extract sweeteners which use a proprietary taste-prediction model to precisely predict which combination of sweet components delivers optimal taste and sweetness for a particular product.”
“51% of consumers admit that they associate products with reduced sugar content to be less tasty”
However, while stevia does a good job replacing the
sweet taste of sugar other ingredients are required to fulfil the bulking and functional role of sugar. “That is when we turn to polyols like erythritol – a naturally occurring sugar alcohol that can be made from corn using enzymes and fermentation – and which pairs well with stevia in confectionery applications,” continues Magalie. “This zero- calorie sweetener can be used in a variety of confectionery applications, including chewing gum, fudge, chocolate, compressed candy, fondants and gummies. It delivers a clean, sweet taste profile, similar to sugars, and replaces sugars’ bulk at a one-to-one ratio. In addition, erythritol has a high digestive tolerance, when compared to other polyols – an important consideration for indulgent products such as candy. It is also clinically shown to offer better tooth protection than other polyols.” Later this year Cargill is set to launch a range of clean-label soluble fibres (corn and wheat-based), which will complete its toolbox of sugar reduction solutions, helping reduce sugar by up to 30%, while enabling ‘high in fibre’ claims.
Time for change?
I spoke to Yoav Goan, CEO and Dagi Pecatch the company founder of B.T. Sweet Ltd, an Israel-based foodtech startup and creator of a new botanical sugar alternative called Cambya, who believe they have a good solution to help confectioners meet their reformulation challenges.
22 Kennedy’s Confection April 2022 Yoav tells me that the biggest challenge facing confectionery
R&D departments today, when looking to reduce sugar content, is to maintain a product’s taste when reformulating recipes to achieve reductions in sugar. “Confectioners need to change the ingredients but not the taste or mouthfeel of their products,” he says. “We believe the trends for more natural and plant-based ingredients in confectionery recipes, along with the trend for sugar reduction, will continue to grow. Everyone is looking for ways to reduce the sugar content of their product – in confectionery this is a particular challenge as it often can comprise up to 70 or 80% of the product!” Cambya (which means ‘change’ in Latin) has been developed to provide a 1-2-1 clean-label equivalent to botanical sugar. It is made from natural plant-based fibres with an intense sweetener and masking extracts, all blended together to create a sugar-like solution. It is available in either powered or granulated form and the team has a working proof-of- concept that confirms its applicability in dry, wet-hot, and cold applications.
“While natural sweeteners are gaining popularity, some can give off a bitter lingering aftertaste,” continues Yoav. “To counter this organoleptic challenge, when developing Cambya we sought to target the hydrophobic sites on natural sweeteners, rendering them less accessible to flavour receptors, which has helped deliver a sugar-like sweetening and bulking effect.” Dagi added: “Cambya blends well with sugar so can be used
to create reduced-sugar product offerings – usually we find that confectioners are looking for reductions of 50% or more. We have a team of food technologists with experience in many different areas so we can help reformulate products to meet individual sugar-reduction goals. It is often possible to remove a percentage of the sugar and directly replace it with Cambya, creating a product with reduced sugar content but having no effect on taste or mouthfeel.”
A desire for indulgence
While consumers are largely driving demand, it should not be forgotten that public health programmes have been a huge catalyst for changing consumer food habits over recent years. The cumulative effect of charity campaigns, governmental initiatives – and to a greater degree legislation – has successfully encouraged more health-conscious choices. In the UK, for example, manufacturers have sought to reduce sugar by 20% across key categories like cakes, cereals, and confectionery, not only to meet Public Health England targets but also to appeal to changing consumer attitudes. Focussing on the drivers behind sugar reduction in chocolate in particular, Philippa Knight, Marketing Director at Puratos UK, points out that consumers wish for healthy options must be balanced with their unwavering desire for indulgence. “Chocolatiers large and small are now taking up the reduced sugar baton,” she says. According to Innova, the frontrunners in the sugar reduced chocolate race include the UK, the US, Brazil and France, with low- or no-sugar claims now appearing on four percent of all new chocolate products globally. “There is a clear appetite for reduced-sugar chocolate offerings but catering to this growing demand does not come without challenges,” adds Philippa.
KennedysConfection.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
